But using 'unicorn' as an example of a non-existent object isn't condescending if it's used in the context of attacking what's perceived as a weak philosophical argument.
Is it fair to say that philosophical arguments are based on axioms that themslves have no percieved origin, and as such are deemed true without evidence of their physical existence?
Do you use logic to define logic?
It might be appropriate if somebody is insisting that atheists are without God (and hence in no position to have opinions about religion) while trying not to address the question of whether or not God exists. 'Unicorn' might be part of the reply that being without something illusory is very different than being without something real. (I believe that's how 'unicorn' was first introduced in post #175)
Is someome without logic (formal training) an illogical person because he or she was not trained in logic?
'Without God' is like someone withoout logic. It isn't an insult, it is a position. An atheist, by definition is someone who lacks belief in God (for whatever reason).
Is a person who lacks belief in logic, bereft of logic, or do they apply logic naturally to everyday situations without knowing that it is the law of logic that are working with their reasoning?
Or it might be useful if somebody is trying to insist that belief in God is not an objective matter and is entirely subjective. 'Unicorn' would represent a fairly polite and inoffensive example of a subjective belief with no objectively existing referrant.
I see it as arogant because your assumption of the world as you see it, is the way the world is. Everything outside of that, has to be proven ( proof is what you desire) to your specification.
It is understandable why you can and do use unicorns, or talking teapots, as a reference to God. Because for those that do, God is merely an object, just like the unicorn would need to be.
If He exists, God should be able, to be located within the universe.
The atheist has trouble with the idea that God is outside of the universe, while being the essential mover within the universe.
The atheist asks to see this essence, seemingly devoid of him/her self, including the enquiry, as an expression of that essence.
The atheist may percieve that kind of talk as woo woo, and demand phycical evidence of the essence they use to express that demand.
I think the term ATheos is a good description of the atheist perspective, because the atheist is mentally without God, in the same way that someone is mentally without logic.
jan.